Understanding the Linkages
between Poverty and Ethnicity
in Mauritius
A PRESENTATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS
GEETANJALI GILL, PHD
Geetanjali Gill
Outline of Presentation
 Rationale and Focus
 Methodology
 Empirical Findings:
 Education and Employment
 Government Services and Resources
 Formal and Informal Social Networks
● Conclusions and Implications
Geetanjali Gill
Rationale
 The difficulty of defining poverty in the ‘Mauritian
context’
 Ethnicity treated as ‘taboo’
 Overabundance of ‘culture of poverty’ arguments
Geetanjali Gill
Methodology
 2 months preliminary baseline survey
 14 key informants and 41 households
 13 months of primary and secondary data collection
 130 households, 4 focus group discussions, 19 local and
national key informants
 In-depth, unstructured, and largely qualitative interviews
 ‘Snowball sampling’
 Participant observation
Geetanjali Gill
Research Sample: Poverty and Ethnicity
 Local ethnic categorisation and articulation
 Local indicators of poverty
 Poverty as material deprivation
 Socio-economic categories
UltraPoor
Poor
Ordinary
MiddleTotal No.
class/elite
Indian
+Tamil
+Telegu
22
36% 13
21% 15
25% 11
18% 61
Muslim
2
10% 3
16%
37% 7
37% 19
Creole
13
30% 17
40% 12
Geetanjali Gill
7
28% 1
2%
43
Research Sample: Ultra-poor Creoles
Geetanjali Gill
Creole Group
Ultra-Poor Category
Darker-skinned
78%
Medium-skinned
22%
Lighter-skinned
0
Research Sample: Income and Ethnicity
Geetanjali Gill
Ethnic Category
Average Monthly
Household Income
USD $
Indian
+Tamil
+Telegu
383
Muslim
566
Darker-skinned Creole
153
Medium-skinned Creole
238
Lighter-skinned Creole
277
Demographic Characteristics of the Poor
 83% of female heads
 73% of female widows
 78% of separated household heads
 73% of extended households
 67% of 1 or 2 person elderly-only households
 67% of households with young children
Geetanjali Gill
Empirical Findings:
Education and Employment
THE NEED FOR PERMANENT AND SECURE
EMPLOYMENT TO ESCAPE FROM POVERTY
THE POTENTIAL ROLE OF EDUCATION TO
LEAD TO SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY
Geetanjali Gill
I: An Ethnically-Segmented Labour Force
 Indians, Tamils, Telegus, and Muslims had white-
collar public-sector work
 Indians and Creoles had white-collar private sector
work
 Indians, Tamils, Telegus, Creoles worked as casual
labourers and masons, low-level factory workers, and
informal sector workers.
 Indians, Tamils, Telegus, and Muslims involved in
more remunerative forms of self-employed
compared to Creoles
Geetanjali Gill
II: Ethnic Discrimination in Recruitment
 Negative stereotyping of Creoles, and to a lesser
degree of Muslims by employers:
“…generally people don’t like to hire Creoles
because they have a bad way of behaving. The
first choice would be Indians, then Muslims, then
Creoles for hiring”. [An Employer in Goodlands]
 Employer discrimination limits Creoles’ employment
opportunities and occupational mobility
Geetanjali Gill
III: ‘Creoles are discouraged and don’t dream’
 An expectation of employer discrimination in
recruitment impacts upon Creoles’ aspirations,
resulting in a cycle of disadvantage and poverty
“Overtime, if you are rejected from work and can’t
find work, you become discouraged….Creoles are
discouraged and don’t dream. And they don’t try.
They see injustice and inequality and feel
defeated. The Creole voice is very low and quiet”.
[A Creole community leader]
Geetanjali Gill
IV. Ethnic Disparities in Education
 Creole household heads have lowest education levels;
many darker-skinned Creoles with none at all
 Muslim household heads most educated
 Indian (and Tamil and Telegu) household heads split
between those with little or no education, and those
who have completed primary levels
Geetanjali Gill
V. A ‘Culture of Exclusion’ in Schools
 Mostly non-Creole teachers, many of whom have
negative stereotypes of Creoles
 Creoles spoke of verbal abuse and discriminatory
behaviour by teachers in classrooms
Geetanjali Gill
VI. Creoles lacking ‘Educational Aspirations’
 Many Creoles did not feel that education would help
them to gain better employment opportunities
 The experience and expectation of being
discriminated against and mistreated in school (as in
the labour market) negatively impacts upon Creoles’
educational aspirations
Geetanjali Gill
Empirical Findings: Government
Services and Resources
INHABITANTS IDENTIFIED THE ROLE OF THE
STATE IN PROVIDING ACCESS TO KEY
RESOURCES AND SERVICES AS CRITICAL TO
THE EXPERIENCE OF POVERTY AND
EXCLUSION
Geetanjali Gill
I. State ‘Gatekeepers’: Ethnic bias and discrimination
 In Goodlands, inhabitants’ encounters with the state
mediated by non-Creole state ‘gatekeepers’ who
display bias and prejudice
 Creoles disadvantaged in their access to certain state
resources (e.g. permits, licences)
 Ultra-poor and poor Indians (Tamils, Telegus) and
Muslims disadvantaged in their access to state
welfare resources
Geetanjali Gill
II. Using One’s ‘Backing’ to Access the State
 Drawing upon social relations with state
‘gatekeepers’ to gain favourable access to the state,
political processes, and state resources
 More social ties exist between non-Creole
inhabitants and state ‘gatekeepers’
 Ultra-poor and poor also generally disadvantaged
Geetanjali Gill
Empirical Findings: Formal and
Informal Social Networks
PEOPLE’S EXPERIENCES IN THEIR SOCIAL
ENVIRONMENTS CAN INFLUENCE THEIR
EXPERIENCES WITH POVERTY
Geetanjali Gill
I. The Influence of Housing and Neighbourhoods
Property Status of Residents
Total No. (%)
Inherited
80 (61%)
State Social Housing
31 (24%)
Purchased land/house
14 (11%)
Renting
5
(4%)
51% of Creoles living in social housing
79% of Indians/Tamils/Telegus living on inherited
family land
58% of Muslims living on inherited family land
32% of Muslims purchased their own land or house
Geetanjali Gill
II. Formal Organisations
 A predominance of ethnic-specific groups, socio-
cultural and religious groups: 76% Hindu, 18%
Muslim, 6% Catholic/Christian
 Very few formal organisations functioned in a social
welfare role
 Some ultra-poor and poor member of Hindu
associations faced ostracism and social exclusion
Geetanjali Gill
III. Informal Social Networks
 Muslims (including ultra-poor) most able to receive
assistance (financial and non-financial) from kin
(75%) and non-kin (67%)
 67% of Creoles got support from kin, and 33% from
non-kin, but mostly non-financial
 50% of Indians got support from kin (financial and
non-financial) but very few of the ultra-poor; 50% of
Indians got support from non-kin (mostly nonfinancial)
 Ultra-poor Indians least able to access informal
social networks for socialisation
Geetanjali Gill
IV. Social Isolation and Poverty
 2/3 of ultra-poor Indians, most of whom were
female-heads and widows, affected
 Excluded due to non-conformance to group’s norms,
values and beliefs
 Stigmatisation of female-heads and widows amongst
Hindus
Geetanjali Gill
Conclusions
 Creoles affected by ‘mutually-reinforcing processes’
of ethnic discrimination and self-exclusion in realms
of education, employment, and relations with the
state
 Ultra-poor and poor Indians, Tamils, Telegus and
Muslims overlooked by state representatives and
hesitant to make welfare claims on the state
 Ultra-poor Indians (mostly widowed female-heads)
faced intra-group social exclusion and social
isolation
Geetanjali Gill
Broader Implications for Discussion
 Ethnic stereotypes, prejudice, discrimination and




exclusion critical factors; and psycho-social impacts
The important role of meso-level state actors and
processes, and ethnic bias
Examination of the role of NGOs and CBOs in ongoing poverty programmes
Universalism or targeting?
Best practices and exchange of information with
other ethnically-plural countries tackling poverty
Geetanjali Gill